I don't think "fringe scholars" is an accurate term for scholars who have questioned the Bible. And I think there were quite a few more than just one.

I think Christians can be perfectly good historians, biologists, geologist, whatever. But they probably aren't True Christians in your eyes unless all their findings mesh smoothly with whatever mythology is in the Bible.

You're right, I don't find the fact that the Bible has survived for 2000 years to be all that impressive. Maybe because my universe has been around longer than yours.

Yes, there is no mythology in the Bible, and your not older than 2000 years, so no your tiny box you call your universe has not been around longer.

Yes, there is no mythology in the Bible, and your not older than 2000 years, so no your tiny box you call your universe has not been around longer.

You can no longer be considered rational and continue to compress the universe itself into the tiny box of a geocentric world model, with a solid firmament containing the stars, moon and sun, created just for mankind (which would be quite Biblical, by the way). So you resort to squeezing all of time down to 6000 years.

You can no longer be considered rational and continue to compress the universe itself into the tiny box of a geocentric world model, with a solid firmament containing the stars, moon and sun, created just for mankind (which would be quite Biblical, by the way). So you resort to squeezing all of time down to 6000 years.

I would say this thread has been derailed but it never got onto the rails. It really comes down to what you think can be relied on. The shifting reality of the skeptic who has their feet firmly planted in the air or the Word of God that has miraculously survived the malicious nature of men who love to distort.

If the fact that the Bible has remained unchanged in substance through out its known historical trail doesn't impress someone who sees how much and how quickly fads change and things are twisted. The bottom line is you don't care about the truth.

Oh, you mean words like "mankind was created in the image and likeness of God." Oh wait, that's you guys, not us, claiming to be "like God."

Your bad!

Actually I was referring to technology, things that make man god-like. Like the computer you and I are using. Our minds and our souls. Also we aren't really claiming that atheist claim to be god-like, but it is their pride that leads them to that conclusion based on the fact that their core belief in the survival of the fittest leads them to it. Atheist will not admit it, but it is what their doing.

Oh, you mean words like "mankind was created in the image and likeness of God." Oh wait, that's you guys, not us, claiming to be "like God."

Your bad!

You guys are way off topic. If you can't see the difference between being created in the image of God but not being God Himself and thinking that you're in control of your short destiny like a god because there is no god then you may not want to get it.

You guys are way off topic. If you can't see the difference between being created in the image of God but not being God Himself and thinking that you're in control of your short destiny like a god because there is no god then you may not want to get it.

You have to take into account that diiferent scientists from different feilds all reach different conclusions sometimes.The historians calculate the age of the Egyptians by chronologies of Kings as you mentioned,but a geologist "Robert Schach" dated the sphynx by the amount of water erosion and concluded that the Egyptians have been there many thousands of years before that.

We can all use different lines of evidence and come up with any story we want.

You have to take into account that diiferent scientists from different feilds all reach different conclusions sometimes.The historians calculate the age of the Egyptians by chronologies of Kings as you mentioned,but a geologist "Robert Schach" dated the sphynx by the amount of water erosion and concluded that the Egyptians have been there many thousands of years before that.

We can all use different lines of evidence and come up with any story we want.

Thanks.

Is that really about the sum of it, liberal interpretations of physical information, to reject the most precise historical account this world has ever seen? This is the same kind of hand waving involved in "The Lost Tomb of Jesus".

Has anyone here seen this "documentary"...

"The God That Wasn't There"?

I've been thinking about buying it to analyze it. I'm certain the same kind of hand waving and misdirection will be in it. I'm sure we'll be answering a new set of faulty objections from it as people try to put a new face on their contempt for God.

http://en.wikipedia....inese_dynastiesHow would you go about reconciling your belief that approximately 4000 years ago the entire earth was flooded, and only a few human beings survived, with the fact that there is historical evidence for at least two thriving civilizations existing around 4000 years ago, civilizations that did not get completely wiped out, but continued to thrive for thousands of years?

Easy, piecing together any ancient dynasty is going to be chalked full of assumptions and in the end will rest overwhelmingly on speculation. CTD already mentioned the one hugely flawed assumption that no two dynasties were simultaneous. Sorry, but just how short-sighted and frankly dumb is that? So what will rule the day in the end are oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s presuppositions - the secular historian is going to find it awfully convenient if his guess places the chronology outside the timeline of the Bible. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve long found the ancient dynasty arguments against the flood to be about as weak an argument as one could level against the Bible.

Nevertheless, if you have two conflicting accounts, how do you go about determining which one is true? Who has the more reliable source? Sir William Ramsey was a highly regarded archeologist and like you a skeptic of the Bible. He set out in the 1800s to disprove the claims of the Bible, but after many years o fresearch in the Middle East and Asia, in the end he became a believer because the Bible over and over again proved him wrong. He called Luke a historian of the first rank. Well, Luke was a doctor, not a historian, so just maybe Luke had Someone helping him out. The Bible always proves far more reliable than secular sources. More here on my sister site: http://www.bibleevidences.com.

What evidence do you have to compel us to believe the secular Egyptian dates (guesses) are right? If it is so convincing, why is it easy to find even secular historians who agree its flawed and needs revision?

I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth...Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians. - William M. Ramsay

Easy, piecing together any ancient dynasty is going to be chalked full of assumptions and in the end will rest overwhelmingly on speculation. CTD already mentioned the one hugely flawed assumption that no two dynasties were simultaneous. Sorry, but just how short-sighted and frankly dumb is that? So what will rule the day in the end are oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s presuppositions - the secular historian is going to find it awfully convenient if his guess places the chronology outside the timeline of the Bible. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve long found the ancient dynasty arguments against the flood to be about as weak an argument as one could level against the Bible.

Nevertheless, if you have two conflicting accounts, how do you go about determining which one is true? Who has the more reliable source? Sir William Ramsey was a highly regarded archeologist and like you a skeptic of the Bible. He set out in the 1800s to disprove the claims of the Bible, but after many years o fresearch in the Middle East and Asia, in the end he became a believer because the Bible over and over again proved him wrong. He called Luke a historian of the first rank. Well, Luke was a doctor, not a historian, so just maybe Luke had Someone helping him out. The Bible always proves far more reliable than secular sources. More here on my sister site: http://www.bibleevidences.com.

What evidence do you have to compel us to believe the secular Egyptian dates (guesses) are right? If it is so convincing, why is it easy to find even secular historians who agree its flawed and needs revision?

I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth...Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians. - William M. Ramsay

FredPS. Merry Christmas everyone...

I re-opened this in case anyone wants to respond to my post, please keep it on topic.